CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03683901Updated Sep 16, 2019Results posted

The Effect of Electrical Stimulation on Impairment of the Painful Post-Stroke Shoulder

An interventional study of TENS and t-NMES in Stroke, sponsored by MetroHealth Medical Center. Completed. Open to participants aged 21 Years to 89 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-09-16.

Sponsored by MetroHealth Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 7 years 8 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Dec 2010, registered Sep 2018).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
10
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
21 Years to 89 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Examination of the effects of short-term use of TENS and t-NMES on passive pain-free ROM of the painful post-stroke shoulder. Treatments are compared with no stimulation.

Read the detailed description

Single cohort, cross-over study. Subjects undergo passive pain-free ROM of the painful post-stroke shoulder under 3 stimulation conditions. The stimulation was delivered by a trained occupational therapist under three conditions: 10 seconds of TENS, 10 seconds of t-NMES, and 10 seconds of no stimulation. Each subject was exposed to each of the three stimulation conditions three times in a computer-generated random sequence for each outcome measure with a 5-minute wash-out period between each stimulation. This protocol is repeated for each of the two passive movements tested, shoulder abduction and shoulder external rotation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Stroke

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Electrical stimulation therapy
  • TENS
  • t-NMES
  • Stroke
03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 10 is below the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

MetroHealth Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 101 studies on the registry; 19 are open to participants now.

Of its 12 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 7 (58%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
21 Years to 89 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • at least 3 months post-stroke
  • worst shoulder pain in the last week at least 4 on the 0-10 numerical rating scale,
  • adequate cognitive ability to be able to rate their pain in the past week

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • history of tachyarrhythmia with decreased blood pressure
  • uncontrolled seizures (defined as more than one per month)
  • an implanted electrical device
  • uncompensated hemi-neglect
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
10 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    TENS/t-NMES/No stimulation

    TENS stimulation parameters were of a symmetric waveform, a frequency of 100 Hz, and a pulse duration of 300 microseconds (EMPI 300PVTM program PPR #7) applied for 10 seconds. t-NMES parameters were a symmetric waveform with 2 second ramp-up and 2 second ramp-down, a frequency of 35Hz, and a pulse duration of 300 microseconds (EMPI 300PVTM program PPR #3). The t-NMES current intensity was set by adjusting the amplitude to yield the strongest contraction of the underlying muscles without initiating pain. Device and electrodes remained in place but no stimulation was delivered over the 10 second interval. Exposed to each stimulation 3 times for each shoulder ROM.

    Device: TENS · Device: t-NMES · Other: No stimulation

Interventions

  • DeviceTENS

    Electrical Stimulation

    Also known as: Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation

  • Devicet-NMES

    Electrical Stimulation

    Also known as: transcutaneous-Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation

  • OtherNo stimulation

    No stimulation

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder External Rotation

    passive range of motion of shoulder in shoulder external rotation as measured with hand-held goniometer

    Time frame: 10 seconds

  2. Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder Abduction

    passive range of motion of shoulder in shoulder abduction as measured with hand-held goniometer

    Time frame: 10 seconds

07

Results

Posted Sep 16, 2019
Limitations and caveats
Electrode placement was determined to provide best possible response for the two movements and stimulation types to maintain blinding; however, may have led to a sub-optimal location for either or both types of stimulation. Small sample size.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneHemiplegic Shoulder Pain
Started10
Completed10
Not completed0

Outcome measures

PrimaryPassive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder External Rotation

passive range of motion of shoulder in shoulder external rotation as measured with hand-held goniometer

Time frame:
10 seconds
Reported as:
Mean · degrees
Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder External Rotation
degreesTENSt-NMESNo Stimulation
Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder External Rotation66.9 (46.9 to 86.8)67.4 (49.4 to 85.4)69.1 (49.6 to 88.7)
PrimaryPassive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder Abduction

passive range of motion of shoulder in shoulder abduction as measured with hand-held goniometer

Time frame:
10 seconds
Reported as:
Mean · degrees
Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder Abduction
degreesTENSt-NMESNo Stimulation
Passive Range of Motion of Shoulder in Shoulder Abduction87.8 (70.0 to 105.7)87.5 (69.8 to 105.1)89.6 (73.9 to 105.4)

Adverse events

Collected over 1 day. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain0/10 (0%)0/10 (0%)0/10 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

All participants underwent all interventions.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Mean59.1 ± 11.3
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Female6
Male4
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Months since stroke
Months since stroke(months)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Mean46.8 ± 42.1
Right sided stroke
Right sided stroke(Participants)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Count of participants6
Worst shoulder pain in the last week (0 min-10 max)
Worst shoulder pain in the last week (0 min-10 max)(units on a scale)TENS/t-NMES/No Stimulation
Mean7.8 ± 2.5
08

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

09

References and documents

Publications

  • Chantraine A, Baribeault A, Uebelhart D, Gremion G. Shoulder pain and dysfunction in hemiplegia: effects of functional electrical stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Mar;80(3):328-31. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90146-6. PubMed 10084443 ↗
  • Faghri PD, Rodgers MM, Glaser RM, Bors JG, Ho C, Akuthota P. The effects of functional electrical stimulation on shoulder subluxation, arm function recovery, and shoulder pain in hemiplegic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Jan;75(1):73-9. PubMed 8291967 ↗
  • Leandri M, Parodi CI, Corrieri N, Rigardo S. Comparison of TENS treatments in hemiplegic shoulder pain. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1990;22(2):69-71. PubMed 2363027 ↗
  • Roosink M, Renzenbrink GJ, Buitenweg JR, van Dongen RT, Geurts AC, Ijzerman MJ. Somatosensory symptoms and signs and conditioned pain modulation in chronic post-stroke shoulder pain. J Pain. 2011 Apr;12(4):476-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2010.10.009. Epub 2010 Dec 17. PubMed 21167792 ↗
  • Sluka KA, Deacon M, Stibal A, Strissel S, Terpstra A. Spinal blockade of opioid receptors prevents the analgesia produced by TENS in arthritic rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999 May;289(2):840-6. PubMed 10215661 ↗
  • Soo Hoo J, Paul T, Chae J, Wilson RD. Central hypersensitivity in chronic hemiplegic shoulder pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jan;92(1):1-9; quiz 10-3. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31827df862. PubMed 23255268 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 16, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03683901
Lead sponsor
MetroHealth Medical Center
Responsible party
John Chae, MD (VP Research Instititute; Chair, Department of PM&R, MetroHealth Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 25, 2018
Start date
Dec 27, 2010
Primary completion
May 1, 2011
Completion
May 1, 2011
Results posted
Sep 16, 2019
Last update
Sep 16, 2019

Study contacts

John Chae, MD
principal investigator · MetroHealth Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion